1.Title, director and release year? Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage, Heather Rogers, 2002
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that garbage is being generated in exorbitant amounts by human populations. We now have enormous amounts of waste that we “hide” from ourselves. We generate all the waste we want and seem not to care or take responsibility for these actions, thinking that things like recycling are good enough to excuse the initial production and quantities of garbage. Every day, each American produces about 4.5 lbs of garbage.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
-Inefficiency of Recycling: Recycling is not as prominent and sustainable as our culture believes. The introduction of the film displays how our society believes that recycling is simple and very effective, however this is not the case. From a technological standpoint, the efficiency of recycling can be increased by using less energy to break down recyclable waste and reproducing new containers, whether plastic, paper, or glass.
-Quantities of Waste: According to the film, in the past 30 years, quantities of waste has doubled in the United States. Even recycling doesn’t happen as much as in other countries. Denmark for example recycles 90% of potentially recyclable material while we recycle much less. Packaging also is superfluous and contributes to this epic amount of garbage we have here in the states.
-Materialism: American in particular live to consume. We are expected t obe good little consumers and consume as much as possible as often as possible.The way our culture exists currently is very unsustainable. We live in a throw-away culture and it needs to change. Our consumerist “rat race” lifestyles and the way that we measure personal success contribute to the problem. Success should not be measured by how much we consume and how much stuff we have when we die, but the amount of positive impact that we have on the world.
-Corporate Greenwashing: Corporate messages often mislead about the affect of a product on the environment. In this film, Rogersclassifies Keep America Beautiful as one of the first greenwashing corporate fronts, created in response to Vermont's 1953 attempt to outlaw disposable containers. The focus on litter, and indeed construction of the modern concept of litter, is seen as an attempt to divert responsibility from industries that rely on disposable and planned obsolescence products to the consumer that improperly disposes of them. In the film we hear Ronald Reagan, free-market anti-regulation champion, as a narrator of a KAB advertisement.
-Creative Destruction: The film discusses creative destruction which is the phenomenon of a new product replacing the use of an old product very quickly. This phenomenon goes hand in hand with materialism; that which forces people to “upgrade.” For example, an ipod is expected to be replaced after a year or more as other “cooler” versions come out. Furthermore, accessories to products preclude this destruction as you can’t always use the old things on the new things which ruins your current stock of products.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The film mentions a re-use campaign that took place in America in the 1940s. Back before the end of WWII, Americans were particularly more aware of what we used and consumed. Much was re-used and issues like creative destruction were less prominent. After WWII when we had to keep the economy going and shift tank factories to car factories, everything changed.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I actually felt that the film was too attacking on recycling. I actually heard the film say some things about recycling that, from my experience, are blatantly false. I know that recycling is a particularly effective process. Even groups like the American Plastics Council and the Aluminum trade groups advocate for recycling. The Aluminum group in particular is pushing for increased aluminum recycling up to around 70% from a current 50%. The film takes a “don’t consume in the first place” stance which I think can be a bit naïve. I think that the positive effects of recycling should have been extrapolated more.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I am most interested in researching this Keep America Beautiful campaign. What I thought to be an innocent litter-free campaign has turned out to be a conspiracy theory of sorts about the regulation of waste.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film can certainly address all sorts of audience and doesn’t seem to have a particular crowd exactly. I think the visceral, intense nature of the demonstration of garbage in the film is enough to shock any viewer. I think that certainly any viewer will at the very minimum think more critically about his/her consumption. Hopefully and engineer will watch this and maybe develop new materials or new processes for reducing waste. There is the front end of minimizing waste in the first place and developing production methods that reduce waste and then there is also the back end of minimizing what makes it to the land fill and how we re-use things.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Buying products that are thought to be sustainable from production to disposal/reuse, as well as spreading the word or making the issue more widely known in communities. It would have been slightly more helpful to know a few more ways that I could personally help my waste accumulation and disposal practices, as well as other non-blatant examples (e.g. plastic bottle usage) that need more attention.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I thought that overall it was a very useful film, and again, my only criticism emanates from a hyper-criticism of recycling which I believe to be unwarranted.
Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage, Heather Rogers, 2002
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that garbage is being generated in exorbitant amounts by human populations. We now have enormous amounts of waste that we “hide” from ourselves. We generate all the waste we want and seem not to care or take responsibility for these actions, thinking that things like recycling are good enough to excuse the initial production and quantities of garbage. Every day, each American produces about 4.5 lbs of garbage.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- -Inefficiency of Recycling: Recycling is not as prominent and sustainable as our culture believes. The introduction of the film displays how our society believes that recycling is simple and very effective, however this is not the case. From a technological standpoint, the efficiency of recycling can be increased by using less energy to break down recyclable waste and reproducing new containers, whether plastic, paper, or glass.
- -Quantities of Waste: According to the film, in the past 30 years, quantities of waste has doubled in the United States. Even recycling doesn’t happen as much as in other countries. Denmark for example recycles 90% of potentially recyclable material while we recycle much less. Packaging also is superfluous and contributes to this epic amount of garbage we have here in the states.
- -Materialism: American in particular live to consume. We are expected t obe good little consumers and consume as much as possible as often as possible.The way our culture exists currently is very unsustainable. We live in a throw-away culture and it needs to change. Our consumerist “rat race” lifestyles and the way that we measure personal success contribute to the problem. Success should not be measured by how much we consume and how much stuff we have when we die, but the amount of positive impact that we have on the world.
- -Corporate Greenwashing: Corporate messages often mislead about the affect of a product on the environment. In this film, Rogersclassifies Keep America Beautiful as one of the first greenwashing corporate fronts, created in response to Vermont's 1953 attempt to outlaw disposable containers. The focus on litter, and indeed construction of the modern concept of litter, is seen as an attempt to divert responsibility from industries that rely on disposable and planned obsolescence products to the consumer that improperly disposes of them. In the film we hear Ronald Reagan, free-market anti-regulation champion, as a narrator of a KAB advertisement.
- -Creative Destruction: The film discusses creative destruction which is the phenomenon of a new product replacing the use of an old product very quickly. This phenomenon goes hand in hand with materialism; that which forces people to “upgrade.” For example, an ipod is expected to be replaced after a year or more as other “cooler” versions come out. Furthermore, accessories to products preclude this destruction as you can’t always use the old things on the new things which ruins your current stock of products.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?The film mentions a re-use campaign that took place in America in the 1940s. Back before the end of WWII, Americans were particularly more aware of what we used and consumed. Much was re-used and issues like creative destruction were less prominent. After WWII when we had to keep the economy going and shift tank factories to car factories, everything changed.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I actually felt that the film was too attacking on recycling. I actually heard the film say some things about recycling that, from my experience, are blatantly false. I know that recycling is a particularly effective process. Even groups like the American Plastics Council and the Aluminum trade groups advocate for recycling. The Aluminum group in particular is pushing for increased aluminum recycling up to around 70% from a current 50%. The film takes a “don’t consume in the first place” stance which I think can be a bit naïve. I think that the positive effects of recycling should have been extrapolated more.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I am most interested in researching this Keep America Beautiful campaign. What I thought to be an innocent litter-free campaign has turned out to be a conspiracy theory of sorts about the regulation of waste.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film can certainly address all sorts of audience and doesn’t seem to have a particular crowd exactly. I think the visceral, intense nature of the demonstration of garbage in the film is enough to shock any viewer. I think that certainly any viewer will at the very minimum think more critically about his/her consumption. Hopefully and engineer will watch this and maybe develop new materials or new processes for reducing waste. There is the front end of minimizing waste in the first place and developing production methods that reduce waste and then there is also the back end of minimizing what makes it to the land fill and how we re-use things.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Buying products that are thought to be sustainable from production to disposal/reuse, as well as spreading the word or making the issue more widely known in communities. It would have been slightly more helpful to know a few more ways that I could personally help my waste accumulation and disposal practices, as well as other non-blatant examples (e.g. plastic bottle usage) that need more attention.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I thought that overall it was a very useful film, and again, my only criticism emanates from a hyper-criticism of recycling which I believe to be unwarranted.
Citations:
http://www.kab.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index&cvridirect=true
http://www.gonetomorrow.org/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595581200/1n9867a-20